The most efficient way to do it would be to layer the line mesh 1-2mm on top of the surface, and checking the Decal option in the exporter.

You may feel the 1mm bump in the FFB, but paint has its thickness as well so it's not unrealistic on the physics side. If you do want the lines to be flat, you can use the TDF's OnTop value to compensate. Personally, I'd keep the 1mm bump.

The Decal option marks the object as being on top of the others. In other words, it greatly reduces the flickering that rF1 suffered from. In the past, 5cm sometimes wasn't even enough to prevent the flickering. Now, when you use the Decal option, you can place the decal object much closer to the source object and it won't flicker. My own tests indicated that 1-2mm was fine in virtually all cases.

I am trying to convert an rfactor 1 track but when i convert the gmt's, using gmt converter, they come out as normal gmts not the rfactor 2 version, so when i try to load the track it syas wrong gmt version, i have the plugin changer installed, but what am i doing wrong?
Any body?
Thanks for any answer given
Gubba

What you need those tons of polys for is for the groove/marbles to work. The sim uses vertex alpha values to control their visibility. If there are no vertices, there can't be any changes in the groove visibility.
If it's a long straight and your cars won't be moving left or right on it, you can probably get away with much less polys. Try it out though, I'm not sure how far vertex alpha can "stretch". In any case since you might not have any groove there anyway, it might not even matter.

What you need those tons of polys for is for the groove/marbles to work. The sim uses vertex alpha values to control their visibility. If there are no vertices, there can't be any changes in the groove visibility.
If it's a long straight and your cars won't be moving left or right on it, you can probably get away with much less polys. Try it out though, I'm not sure how far vertex alpha can "stretch". In any case since you might not have any groove there anyway, it might not even matter.

Tnx Ethone. I'm searching for a good polycount budget to reserve much more polys for other details...like objects, structures..buildings...etc. This is why I'm asking if I can get with less polys...without loosing nothing in feedback and/or other specific features (as groove/marbles...).

I would like to experiment with modeling the edge of the track with a step of asphalt inside the grass. All this stuff needs a lot of polys...so I really need a PCount budget for the basic surface, before proceed.

Precisely. RealRoad is where graphics meet physics on the track, and you need to keep that in mind when building a track. For that reason, I'd very much prefer driving a low poly car on a detailed surface than admiring a million poly car on a piece of road that isn't segmented properly. According to where the action takes place, you'll want to use the polys so the physics engine can do its work. You can get away with really low poly surfaces if no action takes place on the surface, or if you're using pivot-point-based physics .

For that reason, I'd very much prefer driving a low poly car on a detailed surface than admiring a million poly car on a piece of road that isn't segmented properly. According to where the action takes place, you'll want to use the polys so the physics engine can do its work. You can get away with really low poly surfaces if no action takes place on the surface, or if you're using pivot-point-based physics .

Look at the WIP; Of course, areas with less spline vertices have less polys compared to turns with the 3 vertices around the corner. I could cut this areas for a merge with the same spline loft...but with more steps/cuts to increase the straight resolution in these specific straight....That's ok? The actual Editable Poly (for the entire mesh) is around 14.000 Polys/28K Triangles.

dunsfold! very nice for us topgear fans
but won't you do the topgear layout? i see you didn't model the shortcut...

Of course yes. We are working on the TG layout (I'm modeling the shortcut right now...)...but we want to get extra drivable areas...as the longest out circuit and the high speed straight acceleration test....

Of course yes. We are working on the TG layout (I'm modeling the shortcut right now...)...but we want to get extra drivable areas...as the longest out circuit and the high speed straight acceleration test....

veeery nice! always was bummed that you weren't able to drive those sections in GT5...
very looking forward to this one!

As you know, the original Top Gear configuration it's not intended for multicar races...so I'm searching for the right way to program the basic AIW for it. Maybe we will made another Track version for multicar races...with pits and garages...but not at this time.

I would like to set up the AIW for a time trial starting from the grid (the blue circle), without pitlane/garage position but for now I can't find the solution.

Is there a way or I need to think for a standard garage/pitlane position?